Sorry about that…

** Although I get email notices about comments to this blog I have often been too busy to do the followup work of even publishing them. I took the time today and while I still can't get free to comment on the comments, I do appreciate them - even the stupid, nasty and fact-deficient ones. Hope to get back soon.

Foundations of a deluded life

** I’ve commented that my re-reading of the "Foundation" trilogy by Isaac Asimov left me underwhelmed (or only just whelmed in spots). I had read the books as a young teenager but I’ve been wondering why it had occupied a special place in my adult psyche. The re-read at this time so much later in life has cleared that up for me.

It’s all about mental power.

The trilogy posits two “Foundations” as the basis of a new world order. The First Foundation was meant to develop physical power, the evolution of “science” if you will. The Second Foundation’s purpose was to develop mental power. As much of a lover of physical science as I always was, the prospect of power that could be exercised without physical components was startling to me as a youngster. If you tend to feel inadequate, as many teens do, the idea of wielding power just by thinking has great appeal. Even so, the idea lay dormant for many years.

In my mid-30s, I came across Christian”Science,” and learned that it purported to use “mental science” (in those very words) to accomplish wondrous feats in the physical world. Of course, the idea of “healing” through mental power was enormously appealing. and the fact that one could develop this power by studying the writings of its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, seemed a way for me to get out of the grip of helplessness and hopelessness that accompanied the emotional disasters of two failed marriages and the impending disaster of a third relationship. Mix in the insecurities and craziness of my advertising career and I was caught in a perfect storm of conversion.

It took only ten years but I rose to some prominence in the “movement” and not only became a “teacher” of this “mental science” but a writer and public speaker on the subject. In 1989, following the needless death of a child under my “care,” began another ten-year period of intense denial and magical thinking. However, my own “foundations” of belief started to crumble, hardly noticeable at first, but increasingly as reality started to impinge on me. With the political shenanigans at the headquarters church where I worked, and my eventual expulsion from their employ and subsequent forced retirement, the dismantling of my life as a Christian Scientist became more visible to me and others. Much of that disintegration is chronicled here and need not be rehashed. The point of this post is to recognize a little-suspected component of the great delusion that wasted a good part of my life.

Sci-fi travels

** I’m almost finished with the third book in the “Foundation” trilogy by Asimov. I was curious to re-read these for several reasons. The first time I read them was when I was about 12-14, so I wanted to know how much I would remember. Precious little, it turns out. In fact, I wonder if I even read the “Second Foundation.”

Another reason was to compare the vision of the future from a 1950s perspective with today’s reality. Not even close. There’s still plenty of “paper,” phones (although some have video). Spaceships come and go via nuclear power and “air taxis” flit freely about cities.

Having read a bit more science fiction in the interim I was interested in comparing past visions of the future with present expectations. Of course, today’s version of the future sounds plausible enough, based as it is on present technology and social organization. But much of what I’ve read places little emphasis on physical technology but tends to deal with psychological and sociological matters. In fact “Anathem,” by Neil Stevenson, takes place in a world of primitive physical technology – a world of secular, low-tech monasteries. I think today’s science fiction is dealing more with ideas than with gee-whiz gadgets.

Along the way, I note that Asimov, though widely respected – almost revered – wasn’t such a good fiction writer, at least by the standards of other writers like Dick, Card and Stevenson. A good story, plausible, interesting characters are much in evidence compared with Asimov’s cardboard cutouts.

Granted, I’m not a voracious sci-fi reader, but I do think I’ve read some of the best. I’m about to start “Speaker for the Dead,” by Orson Scott Card and I’m in the process of reading Sherri Tepper’s “Grass.” The latter, BTW, is almost Victorian in prose style – almost poetic in fact – with little emphasis on technology.

I’ll welcome further suggestions on good sci-fi.

NOTE: I will follow up this post with some discoveries I made about myself in re-reading the Asimov books.

Guns & Revolution

** The NRA and its apologists claim that the Second Amendment has to do with citizens having weapons to fight an oppressive government. But look at what is happening in the Middle East these days. The rebellions aren't armed conflicts - well, the rebels aren't armed anyway.

In order for citizen uprisings to have a chance at armed conflict they have to be as well equipped as the governments they are trying to combat. But this is never the case. Governments always have more and better guns, more and better-trained troops, better intelligence, etc. Even with a roomful of assault rifles, Mr. Joe Rebel will be no match against even one military tank, much less against one accompanied by a platoon of soldiers, helicopters, satellite communications and observations systems and the whole panoply of stuff we have empowered the government to own and operate on our behalf. After all, we want the most and the best armaments. So if, as Second Amendment evangelists claim, the Constitution allows the citizenry, as individuals, to be armed, it has set them up to be losers in any encounter with the government in power.

That's not the kind of thinking that imbues most of the rest of the constitution. Instead, if the Second Amendment is about local militias, as it clearly states, then it would seem to be providing for states, as governing entities, to defend themselves against small uprisings - maybe by people like today's gun hoarders. It's about states, not individuals. Individuals may be allowed to be armed, but to protect themselves against other individuals, not massed attacks such as would be part of a government's oppression.

In the Middle East, Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen so far, it is not "Second Amendment Remedies" that are working. It's the UNarmed populace taking to the streets, with the aid of the social media.

Face it, people want guns because they're afraid of other people with guns - but only a few people, not whole armies. Their Constitutional arguments don't really address this basic fear.